Tories grant 18 fracking licences - all north of Leicester

OldCoals said:
It is has to be transported and stored doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Water abstracted from the ground will be tested, if necessary treated and then returned to the ground.

A series of sedimentation tanks and filtration to remove trace contaminents may be necessary at the jobsite. You can be assured that the EA will be all over it.

We were pumping groundwater in deep wells to lower a water table for excavation. All abstracted water was tested before being allowed to be returned.
 
OldCoals said:
It is has to be transported and stored doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes. In large steel tanks.

Do you campaign against fuel tanks driving around? They contain far more dangerous fluids than flowback water.

As mentioned already all chemicals added to the water are non toxic AND because of the extremely high levels of regulation in O&G it is considered low level radioactive waste and as such needs to be disposed of at licences disposal locations.

Both cuttings (the rock brought up while drilling) and flowback water are considered radioactive because of NORMs (naturally occurring radioactive minerals) within the rocks. Just to clarify how radioactive the rock is, it's the same stuff people hike over and picnic on in national parks and uplands all over the country. The same radioactivity as the slate people put on their roofs and spread all over their gardens but because it is from a well it is classed as mining waste and comes under very prior mentioned strict regulations.

As for the flowback water radioactivity, its so radioactive you could drink it neat for a year and still not hit the yearly radioactivity limit IIRC*.:p The details of the flowback water produced by Cuadrilla are available online if you want to check that out yourself. :)

TBH much flowback water is now treated on site and reused in subsequent wells so there isn't actually much to tank away.

* to clarify, that's maximum yearly dosage for a radiation worker (eg someone working at a nuclear power station). Obviously most people aren't going to drink neat flowback water so it's a bit irrelevant, but it does show how in radioactive the water actually is.
 
Last edited:
Cosimo said:
What does it make you?
Click to expand...

someone who doesn't want contaminated ground water, earth quakes and sink holes.

its a fact fracking causes the above

You know how they get geothermal wells working?

They do huge fracks to connect the two well bores. Then they pump water down, it percolates through the fractures and comes up the other wellbore.

Unfortunately for the UK we don't have the heat potential of places like Iceland and so far, even in the hottest places no one has been able to make it economically viable over here.
Click to expand...
a cool fact is the deeper you go the hotter it gets until it's about as hot as the surface of the sun, some scientists suggest maybe even hotter

40,000 ft is around 180c
50,000 ft or so down and you hit around 300c
 
Last edited:
We drill wells around 2600m (or around 1600m TVD or True Vertical Depth) which are around 60c. In the past, I have drilled 100c wells at around 5000m (~2600m TVD). As you go deeper, the temps increase. My old work were doing geothermal stuff in Turkey, cant remember the depths they were hitting though.
 
balky12 said:
+1

Too many people think renewables are the answer however. Ignoring the fact that they are horribly inefficient and heavily subsidised (perhaps not for much longer).
Click to expand...

HaHa, nuclear is the most heavily 'subsidised' form of power generation. Plus we get to pay for the cleanup when it ceases production/goes wrong.
 
Build more wind farms.

Put more money into Fusion.

Solve fusion (maybe with ITAR) take down windfarms, chop up concrete base and turn into a nice stone wall.

Pay back fusion research with the bills over the next 100 years.

Sorted.

VOTE SPG.

(also everyone will be chipped and tagged, not for tracking purposes, but so you wont lose your car keys anymore)
 
Or build solar sites in spain and pipe the power around europe. The grid can be looked after by EU so the lazy Spanish dont have a civil war or decide to break it in protest for something or other.
 
arknor said:
someone who doesn't want contaminated ground water, earth quakes and sink holes.

its a fact fracking causes the above


a cool fact is the deeper you go the hotter it gets until it's about as hot as the surface of the sun, some scientists suggest maybe even hotter

40,000 ft is around 180c
50,000 ft or so down and you hit around 300c
Click to expand...

Except that a lot of this can be mitigated by proper regulation (which the UK generally has).

Lots of activities that go on in the UK are dangerous/have the potential to cause environmental impacts but regulation is in place to mitigate the risks.

Fracking is exactly the same, there's nothing super duper risking or dangerous about it - with appropriate regulation there's no real reason to fear it.
 
i heard if u drill enuff holes in the ground then the earth will imploade like the death star in star wars so i dont like fracking
 
Tefal said:
Brilliant will bring some good jobs and money to the north.

We don't mind industrial jobs up here you see.
Click to expand...

Jobs? What are you talking about? Aren't the benefits payments high enough then? :(

Snookums said:
If the Tories are stupid enough to waste more money on fracking than finding a long term feasible renewable source then give them there 5 years. It'll only come back around to them. Sure we get loads of barrels off of them but you've then created a giant man hole, genius.
Click to expand...

Like coal mines, you mean? Terrible, all those holes in the ground. That'll never provide any work eh?
 
Last edited:
The main issue with shale is the driving down of costs of CO2 producing fossil fuels, if we started producing shale gas on mass we would no longer be importing gas from the EU or burning as much imported coal.

If we actually want to tackle increase CO2 emissions, air pollution & climate change then our focus should be on renewable technology, not extracting significantly more fossil fuels.

The other problem is, the more nations that begin the process - the more pressure on others to begin producing shale to remain competitive on the energy production market - essentially there are two probably scenarios (neither of which is desirable really).

1. A limited number of nations produce shale & it has little impact on the total global gas product & therefore the energy price.
2. Everybody produces shale & prices drop, but we find ourselves missing every single one of our CO2 targets.
 
Gas does burn pretty clean though. If we used more gas and less petrol / coal we would significantly reduce our pollution levels. I'm not saying it's an ideal scenario. But it would help.

Really, renewable technology isn't there yet. It clearly needs money spent on development. The way to go just now is nuclear. It's a relatively clean and powerful source of energy. But too many people are too scared of it.
 
scorza said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...es-is-in-the-north-and-midlands-10461331.html

Don't get me wrong, I live in an area of the south of England that would be considered a "fracking hot-spot" so I'm glad that there's no licence granted for an area close by. However it does seem a bit typical of the Tories to shaft the North to protect their chums in the South-East. So much for the "northern power-house", once again the North is going to be exploited in environmental and economic terms to provide cheap energy for London and the South. #ToriesGonnaTory
Click to expand...

Well after reading Amp34's excellent, coherent posts; your opening post seems to have somewhat backfired!

#KeepGrindingThatChip
 
:( lokiss, let us know if they do anything like this; courtesy of communism

h8u570F.png
 
arknor said:
someone who doesn't want contaminated ground water, earth quakes and sink holes.

its a fact fracking causes the above


a cool fact is the deeper you go the hotter it gets until it's about as hot as the surface of the sun, some scientists suggest maybe even hotter

40,000 ft is around 180c
50,000 ft or so down and you hit around 300c
Click to expand...

Sinkholes are a new one on me and we have already covered the earthquakes and water contamination.

The geothermal gradient (temperate as you go down) varies significantly, even in the UK. Where I've worked you can get to 120C at around 10-12,000 ft, with a geothermal gradient of around 25C per km. I've heard from service companies of some locations where their tools have failed due to excess heat (eg 200C at 15,000 feet)! It's amazing the power the earth has, "bubbling" just below the surface.

The gradient is much higher in SW England than elsewhere due to the granitic intrusions there, here is a nice link giving a bit of info on it. Have a look around three quarters of the way down and there's a good image of the heat variation in the subsurface. :)

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/geothermal/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom